"We need to finish up the discussion on human rights. Then we have to cover the GA and it's powers. Then the DC. Finally the world court of justice. And then some more provisions, such as amending the charter. Now let's continue with human rights. Now some of you may be thinking that is too far of the NOTW. But bear this in mind. If a country doesn't provide these rights. It is just a few sanctions. To push the country in the right direction. Now is that really all too reaching."

Delegate Danforth stood, "I belive it was stated in the earlier discussion of this topic that it is the position of the Confederate State of Missouri that rather than establish a specific enumeration of rights this organization should seek to prevent crimes against hummanity. This would be defined as the intentional, systematic , oppression of a particular group of people by a government, or government like entity. This would prohibit oppression on the basis of religion or ethnicity for certain but would not prohibit such things as state religions or royal families."

"It is the position of Central Texas that breaking the basic rights of a person by a nation. Can constitute something of a crime against humanity. So we need to make sure this organization strives to better and free the lives of all humanity."

In response Danforth answered, "But sir, being delibrately vague achieves nothing but leave this document open to egreagous interpretation by courts or make it completely unenforceable. Therefore, in order to settle this most basic of matters, the Confederate State of Missouri moves to bring to the floor a vote on whether we shall establish a bill of rights or simply seek to abolish crimes against humanity as defined by current international law. Do I have second?"

OOC: Currently there really isn't known international law which states the crimes. That is well mentioned in RP. And then we would have to create such a thing. And then that would take more approval. So let us just make the rights on our own.

"Central Texas is against the current wording of this right. As it stands, it could be interpreted as meaning the death penalty isn't allowed. And currently CT has Death as punishment for certain crimes. So this would violate sovereignty in a way. So I suggest we find a way to reword it."

OOC: I agree with ya brander. But this is to showcase the way of RP in government. And if we were to do it on the chat someone would speak OOC without telling. Then we copy and paste it...it just becomes a big mess.